
Class _ 
Book _ 









^ 




1881 



The Declaration of Independence 

A Masterpiece: 

But How it Got Mutilated f 

[In reply to an article which appeared in The Truth Seeker 
of May 21, 1881.] 

The strictures of " A Hater of Shams " on the style 
of the Declaration of Independence, partly sensible 
and just, but partly trivial and hypercritical, will, I 
am sure, when properly examined, understood, and 
applied, only serve to fix more firmly the authorship 
of that great masterpiece on Thomas Paine. Indeed, 
I am glad they hav been made just at this time, for 
they hav enabled me to discover new evidence, 
which otherwise might never hav been detected. 

A few weeks ago I made an attempt to reproduce, 
from the fac-simile of the so-called original draft 
of the Declaration in Jefferson's hand- writing, the 
exact words he wrote, or copied from a prior draft, 
before he submitted his paper to the sub-committee. 
The written document, as it exists, is full of eras- 
ures and interlineations, made mostly by Jeffer- 
son himself, but, generally, no doubt, at the instance 
of others, either in the committee or in Congress. A 
few are in the handwriting of Adams and Franklin. 
It is quite likely that when the report was made to 
Congress several drafts were prepared, and some of 
them preserved. Hence we hear of several " origi- 






2 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

rials." John Adams had one, Franklin another, it is 
said, in England, and Richard Henry Lee another. 
I follow the fac-simile in Jefferson's works. 

The gentleman from Connecticut has submitted 
and criticised the first paragraph and part of the 
second as amended and adopted by Congress. I 
now submit the same portion as it existed before a 
word was erased or interlined. And this I shall 
presume to be the work of Paine, though it is quite 
possible that his careful composition was somewhat 
marred by the transcribing hand of Jefferson. 
Indeed, I suspect that in a few instances Jefferson 
changed the language by inserting words of his 
own. The words erased in committee or Congress 
will be indicated in italics, without giving the sub- 
stituted language: 

" When in the course of human events it becomes necessary 
for a people to advance from that subordination in which they 
hav hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the 
earth the equal and independent station to which the laws of 
nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to 
the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the 
causes which impel them to the change. 

" We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all 
men are created equal and independent; that from that equal 
creation they derive all rights inherent and. inalienable, among 
which are the preservation of life and liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness; that to secure these ends governments are insti- 
tuted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent 
of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall 
become destructiv of these ends it is the right of the people to 
alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its 



A MASTERPIECE. d 

foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in 
such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their 
safety and happiness." 

It will at once be seen by the gentleman from 
Connecticut that several, if not all, of his most im- 
portant criticisms do not apply to the above, but to 
the amended document. Nevertheless I will pro- 
ceed to restate and answer them seriatim. 

1. "When in the course of human events.'" Did Paine 
write that? No [says our critic], for he knew that events can- 
not properly be spoken of as having, or coming in, a course, 
And how about "human?" Are there any human events 
Human affairs there may be, but who will define a human 
event ? 

Answer: This is a hypercriticism. Webster givs 
as synonyms of event, " Incident, occurrence, ad- 
venture," etc., and remarks that an occurrence has 
no reference to any antecedents; and therefore, in 
the Declaration of Independence, occurrences would 
hav been out of place. 

But now let us see how Paine uses the word event. 
I turn at random to the last four pages of " Common 
Sense." Alluding to the alarming condition of 
things in America he says : 

" The Case [the critic will understand why I capitalize and 
italicize this word,, if no one else does] never existed before, and 
who can tell what may be the event ?" 

" This line [i.e. armed defense] is a line of consistency, . . 
produced by a chain of events of which the colonies were not 
the author." 

" The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of 
men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to 



4 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few 
months." 

Here are three instances, on three successiv pages, 
of the use of the word " event," and they all refer to 
"human events," not "cows' horns or harrows' 
teeth." 

2. " To dissolve the political bands which hav connected 
them with another." Could Paine hav been guilty of so in- 
correct a figure ? Can bands (cords, ropes, etc.) properly be 
spoken of as dissolvable ? 

Answer: Certainly, if they happen to be made of 
soluble material. Has not many an iron band been 
dissolved with nitric acid ? 

But we don't know who made that amendment, 
and I presume that " bonds " were intended instead 
of " bands " — though the two words are quite syn- 
onymous. The probability, however, is that the 
amendment was suggested by this clause in the last 
paragraph of the original Declaration, " We utterly 
dissolve and break off all political connection." That 
doubtless was written by Paine. What objection to 
that? 

3. "And to assume among the powers of the earth the separate 
and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's 
God entitle them." Did not the author mean, " to the oceu- 
fancy of which;" and if so, why didn't he say so? And are 
the "laws of nature " made any stronger by calling them the 
laws of " nature's God ?" 

Answer : By transferring " to " to the end of the 
sentence the meaning is made clear and the gram- 
mar correct; b\xt it breaks the rhythm and ends the 



A MASTERPIECE. 5 

sentence with a particle. So, too, the insertion of the 
redundant words "nature's God" improves the 
rhythm ; and perhaps Paine (or Jefferson, if you 
please) thought it politic to put a little God in the 
Declaration. 

4. ''A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires 
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the 
separation.'''' What separation ? There is nothing antecedent 
but talk about the necessity of it. And who ever heard of an 
mdecent respect? And why apologize for assuming a ne- 
cessity ? 

Answer: There is no "separation," nor even 
"separate," in the original draft; therefore this 
criticism, though just, does not apply. For " sep- 
aration " read " change." 

In the first letter of Junius one sentence ends with 
" decent," and the next begins with " respect." 
These were favorit words with Junius and Paine. 
" Decent " means " suitable in words," etc. ; " be- 
coming, fit, decorous, proper, comely." Prefix the 
negativ to any one of these adjectivs, and see how it 
would qualify "respect." For example: I hav an 
" wwproper respect " for such hypercriticism. 

An apology for a necessity is certainly proper. 
But this apology had a grand purpose. Paine 
sought to unite and inspire the hearts of the Amer- 
ican people to feel as he felt when he wrote that 
famous letter to the king, in which, with prophetic 
fervor, Junius said : 

" Looking forward to independence, they might possibly 
•eceive you for their king: but if ever you retire to Ameriir. 



6 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

be assured they will giv you such a covenant to digest as the 
presbytery of Scotland would have been ashamed to offer to 
Charles II." 

(And here I beg to make a digression by quoting 
the next sentence, to wit, "They left their nativ 
land in search of freedom, and found it in a desert." 
In Dickinson's draft of the Declaration, or Memorial, 
of 1775 occurs this passage, " Our forefathers . . . 
left their nativ land to seek on these shores a resi- 
dence for civil and religious freedom ... in 
the inhospitable wilds of America." Again, in the 
Declaration of 1776 a like sentiment is expressed, 
and, what is more remarkable, not only do the 
passages in the two Declarations parallel in senti- 
ment, but in language, showing that the latter is 
certainly borrowed from the former. But Jefferson 
did not write the passage in the Declaration of 1775, 
and he says that in drafting that of 1776 he turned 
neither to book nor pamphlet. True enough, for the 
draft was already prepared by Paine, who doubtless 
also had a hand in Dickinson's Declaration of 1775.) 

5. " We hold these truths to be self-evident." Then why 
proclaim them ? 

Answer: The original draft reads, "sacred and 
undeniable." But even as changed to " self-evident," 
are there not multitudes who deny them ? Among 
whom, I am sorry to say, seems to be our astute 
critic. 

6. " That all men are created equal." How ? Not morally, 
intellectually, physically, or so forth ! 

Answer : Certainly not. Who but an idiot or 



A MASTERPIECE. 7 

lunatic would affirm it ? But why divide the sen- 
tence ? Take it complete, and then discuss its mean- 
ing. 

7. " That they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness." " Unalienable," says the critic, means 
"incapable of being put off." How, then, could anybody hav 
lost his liberty or suicided in America since 1776 ? And what 
a queer thing to be endowed with is a " pursuit!" And the 
author doesn't say " right to life, liberty," etc., but makes life 
and liberty synonyms of rights. 

Answer: "Inalienable" is denned by Webster, 
" Incapable of being put off, alienated, or transferred 
to another." Complete liberty and independence 
are even yet a great way off, if ever attainable ; but 
the American Revolution was a long stride in the 
right direction. The slave's " inalienable " right to 
himself has been forcibly taken from him and trans- 
ferred to his master. Every philanthropist wants 
to help him recover it if practicable, and with it the 
right to " the pursuit of happiness," wherewith he 
has been "endowed" by nature or nature's God. 

Technically, "life, liberty," etc., are not rights; 
but there is such a thing known to grammarians, 
and understood even by the illiterate, as an ellipsis 
in language. The best writers often indulge in it. 
But in this case the criticism does not apply, 
unless our critic raises a like objection to "the 
preservation of life and liberty" in the original 
draft. But in either case the ellipsis would bar the 
objection, for everybody understands exactly what 
it meant. 



8 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

8. " That to secure these rights governments are instituted 
among men [not cats, says critic], deriving their just powers 
from the consent of the governed." What rights, but the 
aforesaid inalienable ones ? And how can government secure 
what is already secured and fixed fast as fate ? 

Answer: Cats and other domestic animals hav 
evoluted to their present state of liberty and happi- 
ness by the governments which men hav instituted 
over those primitiv wild beasts. And now in turn 
the evoluted cats, dogs, horses, etc., help mankind to 
govern tbemselvs, and other brutes. The " guffaw 
of the Guinea negro " (critic's words), who a few 
years ago was generally degraded to the condition 
of a cat, a dog, or a mule, is now beginning to be 
heard in the councils of the nation. And in my 
humble judgment that "wretched state paper" 
(critic's words), the Declaration of Independence, 
sowed the seeds of negro emancipation in America. 

The word " rights " is an amendment for " ends " 
in the original draft. It is not an improvement. 
But governments are instituted to secure rights that 
are "inalienable" — that is, not transferable to 
another except by force, duress, or fraud — in spite 
of the grammatical criticism of the gentleman from 
Connecticut. 

9. " That whenever any form of government becomes de- 
structiv of these ends [we havn't heard, he says, of any 
" ends " before] it is the right of the people to abolish it (i.e., 
the form, and leave the government standing) and to institute 
new government (with the old still standing), laying its founda- 
tions on such principles (below -the foundations), and organiz- 
ing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely 



A MASTERPIECE. 9 

to effect their safety and happiness (while already in possession 
of the inalienable rights aforesaid)." 

Answer: The word "ends" being found aforesaid 
in the original draft, the first criticism above does 
not apply. 

How can you abolish the form of a government 
and leave the old government standing? Did the 
British government of the colonies continue after the 
close of the Revolution ? 

" Foundation " (it is singular in the original draft) 
means, "1. The act of founding, fixing, establishing, 
or beginnning to erect ; 2. That upon which a thing 
is founded," etc. The foundation of a house may 
be laid on a rock or on piles, or on quicksand; so 
may that of a government, metaphorically speaking. 

Our fathers of 1776 were deprived of the inaliena- 
ble right of self-government, and they fought seven 
years to recover it. But the work was only par- 
tially done, and perhaps never will be completely 
done. Is it possible that the gentleman from Con- 
necticut denies the self-evident truth that all men 
are created equal in regard to the right to life, lib- 
erty, etc ? Will he or anybody else deny that I, or 
the meanest black man, hav not an equal right with 
himself to " the preservation of life and liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness?" That is exactly the 
meaning and the expression of the Declaration, and 
it is folly to deny so self-evident a truth. 

The gentleman attributes that portion of the 
Declaration containing the statement of grievances 
to the hand of John Adams. This is expressly con- 



10 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

tradicted by Adams himself, who says Jefferson pre- 
pared the whole, and that when they two met to 
con it over he (Adams) does not remember making 
or suggesting a single alteration. He forgot, how- 
ever, that he made two or three verbal changes with 
his own pen. But could either the pen of John 
Adams or Thomas Jefferson hav described a griev- 
ance like this last one in the list? 

" He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, vio- 
lating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons 
of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and 
carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur 
miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical 
warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare 
of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to 
keep open market where MEN should be bought and sold, he 
has prostituted his negativ for suppressing every legislativ at- 
tempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And 
that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distin- 
guished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in 
arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has 
deprived them by murdering the people on whom he has ob- 
truded them, thus paying off former "rimes committed against 
the LIBERTIES of one people with crimes which he urges 
them to commit against the LIVES of another." 

This most eloquent paragraph of the Declaration 
was stricken out unamended. Speaking of it, Prof. 
Denslow says, " The English language possesses no 
clause more elaborate in its rhetoric." And of the 
Declaration as a whole, Col. Ingersoll says: 

" Certain it is that Jefferson could not hav written anything 
so manly, so striking, so comprehensiv,so clear, so convincing, 
and so faultless in rhetoric and rhythm." 



A MASTERPIECE. 11 

But the gentleman from Connecticut, if I am able 
to understand and apply his criticisms, would emas- 
culate the Declaration of all rhetoric and rhythm, and 
make it read thus : 

When people want to break away from others and be inde- 
pendent, they ought to say why. 

People hav an equal right to life, liberty, etc. Governments 
exist to secure these rights. Just governments are based on 
the people's consent. When a government won't protect them, 
they hav a right to upset it and make a new one that will. 

Here is expressed in sixty words every mate- 
rial sentiment in the first one hundred and eighty 
words of the Declaration. But what a skeleton ! 
Could such language as that hav enthused anybody ? 
Such a death's-head and cross-bones in a Declaration 
of Independence, instead of rallying the patriots of 
'76, would hav frightened the goddess of liberty out 
of her senses and driven her into the Dismal Swamp. 

Washington, D. (7., May 24, 1881. W. H. B. 



The Declaration of Independence 

A Masterpiece: 

But How it Got Mutilated ! 

[In reply to an article which appeared in The Truth Seeker 
of May 21, 1881.] 

The strictures of " A Hater of Shams " on the style 
of the Declaration of Independence, partly sensible 
and just, but partly trivial and hypercritical, will, I 
am sure, when properly examined, understood, and 
applied, only serve to fix more firmly the authorship 
pf that great masterpiece on Thomas Paine. Indeed, 

K I am glad they hav been made just at this time, for 
they hav enabled me to discover new evidence, 

i which otherwise might never hav been detected. 

\ A few weeks ago I made an attempt to reproduce, 
from the fac-simile of the so-called original draft 
of the Declaration in Jefferson's hand-writing, the 
exact words he wrote, or copied from a prior draft, 
before he submitted his paper to the sub-committee. 
The written document, as it exists, is full of eras- 
ures and interlineations, made mostly by Jeffer- 
son himself, but, generally, no doubt, at the instance 
of others, either in the committee or in Congress. A 
few are in the handwriting of Adams and Franklin. 
It is quite Hkely that when the report was made to 
Congress several drafts were prepared, and some of 
them preserved. Hence we hear of several " origi- 




1 



,3*76 

2 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

nals." John Adams had one, Franklin another, it is 
said, in England, and Richard Henry Lee another. 
I follow the fac-simile in Jefferson's works. 

The gentleman from Connecticut has submitted 
and criticised the first paragraph and part of the 
second as amended and adopted by Congress. I 
now submit the same portion as it existed before a 
word was erased or interlined. And this I shall 
presume to be the work of Paine, though it is quite 
possible that his careful composition was somewhat 
marred by the transcribing hand of Jefferson. 
Indeed, I suspect that in a few instances Jefferson 
changed the language by inserting words of his 
own. The words erased in committee or Congress 
will be indicated in italics, without giving the sub- 
stituted language: 
/ 

" When in the course of human events it becomes necessary 
for a people to advance from that subordination in which they 
hav hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the 
earth the equal and independent station to which the laws of 
nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to 
the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the 
causes which impel them to the change. 

" We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all 
men are created equal and independent ; that from that equal 
creation they derive all rights inherent and inalienable, among 
which are the preservation of life and liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness; that to secure these ends governments are insti- 
tuted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent 
of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall 
become destructiv of these ends it is the right of the people to 
alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its 



A MASTERPIECE. 3 

foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in 
such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect then- 
safety and happiness." 

It will at once be seen by the gentleman from 
Connecticut that several, if not all, of his most im- 
portant criticisms do not apply to the above, but to 
the amended document. Nevertheless I will pro- 
ceed to restate and answer them seriatim. 

1. "When in the course of human events."' Did Paine 
write that? No [says our critic], for he knew that events can- 
not properly be spoken of as having, or coming in, a course, 
And how about "human?" Are there any human events 
Human affairs there may be, but who will define a human 
event ? 

Answer: This is a hypercriticism. Webster givs 
as synonyms of event, " Incident, occurrence, ad- 
venture," etc., and remarks that an occurrence has 
no reference to any antecedents; and therefore, in 
the Declaration of Independence, occurrences would 
hav been out of place. 

But now let us see how Paine uses the word event. 
I turn at random to the last four pages of " Common 
Sense." Alluding to the alai'ming condition of 
things in America he says : 

" The Case [the critic will understand why I capitalize and 
italicize this word,, if no one else does] never existed before, and 
who can tell what may be the event ?" 

" This line [i.e. armed defense] is a line of consistency, . . 
produced by a chain of events of which the colonies were not 
the author." 

" The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of 
men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to 



4 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few 
months." 

Here are three instances, on three successiv pages, 
of the use of the word " event," and they all refer to 
"human events," not "cows' horns or harrows' 
teeth." 

2. " To dissolve the political hands which hav connected 
them with another." Could Paine hav been guilty of so in- 
correct a figure ? Can bands (cords, ropes, etc.) properly be 
spoken of as dissolvable ? 

Answer: Certainly, if they happen to be made of 
soluble material. Has not many an iron band been 
dissolved with nitric acid ? 

But we don't know who made that amendment, 
and I presume that " bonds " were intended instead 
of " bands " — though the two words are quite syn- 
onymous. The probability, however, is that the 
amendment was suggested by this clause in the last 
paragraph of the original Declaration, " We utterly 
dissolve and break off all political connection." That 
doubtless was written by Paine. What objection to 
that? 

3. "And to assume among the powers of the earth thespparate 
and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's 
God entitle them." Did not the author mean, " to the occu- 
pancy of which;" and if so, why didn't he say so? And are 
the " laws of nature " made any stronger by calling them the 
laws of " nature's God ?" 

Answer: By transferring "to" to the end of the 
sentence the meaning is made clear and the gram- 
mar correct; but it breaks the rhythm and ends the 



A MASTEEPIECE. 5 

sentence with a particle. So, too, the insertion of the 
redundant words "nature's God" improves the 
rhythm ; and perhaps Paine (or Jefferson, if you 
please) thought it politic to put a little God in the 
Declaration. 

4. ''A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires 
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the 
separation." What separation ? There is nothing antecedent 
but talk about the necessity of it. And who ever heard of an 
mdecent respect? And why apologize for assuming a ne- 
•? 



Answer: There is no "separation," nor even 
"separate," in the original draft; therefore this 
criticism, though just, does not apply. For "sep- 
aration " read " change." 

In the first letter of Junius one sentence ends with 
" decent," and the next begins with " respect." 
These were favorit words with Junius and Paine. 
"Decent" means "suitable in words," etc.; "be- 
coming, fit, decorous, proper, comely." Prefix the 
negativ to any one of these adjectivs, and see how it 
would qualify "respect." For example: I hav an 
" improper respeet " for such hypercriticism. 

An apology for a necessity is certainly proper. 
But this apology had a grand purpose. Paine 
sought to unite and inspire the hearts of the Amer- 
ican people to feel as he felt when he wrote that 
famous letter to the king, in which, with prophetic 
fervor, Junius said : 

" Looking forward to independence, they might possibly 
•eceive you for their king: but if ever you retire to America , 



6 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

be assured they will giv you such a covenant to digest as the 
presbytery of Scotland would have been ashamed to offer to 
Charles II " 

(And here I beg to make a digression by quoting 
the next sentence, to wit, "They left their nativ 
land in search of freedom, and found it in a desert." 
In Dickinson's draft of the Declaration, or Memorial, 
of 1775 occurs this passage, " Our forefathers . . . 
left their nativ land to seek on these shores a resi- 
dence for civil and religious freedom ... in 
the inhospitable wilds of America." Again, in the 
Declaration of 1776 a like sentiment is expressed, 
and, what is more remarkable, not only do the 
passages in the two Declarations parallel in senti- 
ment, but in language, showing that the latter is 
certainly borrowed from the former. But Jefferson 
did not write the passage in the Declaration of 1775, 
and he says that in drafting that of 1776 he turned 
neither to book nor pamphlet. True enough, for the 
draft was already prepared by Paine, who doubtless 
also had a hand in Dickinson's Declaration of 1775.) 

5. " We hold these truths to be self-evident." Then why 
proclaim them ? 

Answer: The original draft reads, "sacred and 
undeniable." But even as changed to "self-evident," 
are there not multitudes who deny them ? Among 
whom, I am sorry ,to say, seems to be our astute 
critic. 

6. " That all men are created equal." How? Not morally, 
intellectually, physically, or so forth ! 

Answer: Certainly not. Who but an idiot or 



A MASTERPIECE. 7 

lunatic would affirm it? But why divide the sen- 
tence ? Take it complete, and then discuss its mean- 
ing. 

7. " That they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness." " Unalienable," says the critic, means 
"incapable of being put off." How, then, could anybody hav 
lost his liberty or suicided in America since 1776 ? And what 
a queer thing to be endowed with is a "pursuit!" And the 
author doesn't say " right to life, liberty," etc., but makes life 
and liberty synonyms of rights. 

Answer: "Inalienable" is defined by Webster, 
" Incapable of being put off, alienated, or transferred 
to another." Complete liberty and independence 
are even yet a great way off, if ever attainable ; but 
the American Revolution was a long stride in the 
right direction. The slave's " inalienable " right to 
himself has been forcibly taken from him and trans- 
ferred to his master. Every philanthropist wants 
to help him recover it if practicable, and with it the 
right to " the pursuit of happiness," wherewith he 
has been " endowed " by nature or nature's God. 

Technically, "life, liberty," etc., are not rights; 
but there is such a thing known to grammarians, 
and understood even by the illiterate, as an ellipsis 
in language. The best writers often indulge in it. 
But in this case the criticism does not apply, 
unless our critic raises a like objection to "the 
preservation of life and liberty" in the original 
draft. But in either case the ellipsis would bar the 
objection, for everybody understands exactly what 
it meant. 



O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

8. " That to secure these rights governments are instituted 
among men [not cats, says critic], deriving their just powers 
from the consent of the governed." What rights, but the 
aforesaid inalienable ones ? And how can government secure 
what is already secured and fixed fast as fate ? 

Answer: Cats and other domestic animals hav 
evoluted to their present state of liberty and happi- 
ness by the governments which men hav instituted 
over those primitiv wild beasts. And now in turn 
the evoluted cats, dogs, horses, etc., help mankind to 
govern themselvs, and other brutes. The " guffaw 
of the Guinea negro " (critic's words), who a few 
years ago was generally degraded to the condition 
of a cat, a dog, or a mule, is now beginning to be 
heard in the councils of the nation. And in my 
humble judgment that "wretched state paper" 
(critic's words), the Declaration of Independence, 
sowed the seeds of negro emancipation in America. 

The word " rights " is an amendment for " ends " 
in the original draft. It is not an improvement. 
But governments are instituted to secure rights that 
are "inalienable" — that is, not transferrable to 
another except by force, duress, or fraud — in spite 
of the grammatical criticism of the gentleman from 
Connecticut. 

9. " That whenever any form of government becomes de- 
structiv of these ends [we havn't heard, he says, of any 
" ends " before] it is the right of the people to abolish it (i.e., 
the form, and leave the government standing) and to institute 
new government (with the old still standing), laying its founda- 
tions on such principles (below the foundations), and organiz- 
ing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely 



A MASTERPIECE. 9 

to effect their safety and happiness (while already in possession 
of the inalienable rights aforesaid)." 

Answer: The word "ends" being found aforesaid 
in the original draft, the first criticism above does 
not apply. 

How can you abolish the form of a government 
and leave the old government standing? Did the 
British government of the colonies continue after the 
close of the Revolution ? 

" Foundation " (it is singular in the original draft) 
means, " 1. The act of founding, fixing, establishing, 
or beginnning to erect; 2. That upon which a thing 
is founded," etc. The foundation of a house may 
be laid on a rock or on piles, or on quicksand; so 
may that of a government, metaphorically speaking. 

Our fathers of 1776 were deprived of the inaliena- 
ble righf of self-government, and they fought seven 
years to recover it. But the work was only par- 
tially done, and perhaps never will be completely 
done. Is it possible that the gentleman from Con- 
necticut denies the self-evident truth that all men 
are created equal in regard to the right to life, lib- 
erty, etc ? Will he or anybody else deny that I, or 
the meanest black man, hav not an equal right with 
himself to " the preservation of life and liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness?" That is exactly the 
meaning and the expression of the Declaration, and 
it is folly to deny so self-evident a truth. 

The gentleman attributes that portion of the 
Declaration containing the statement of grievances 
to the hand of John Adams. This is expressly con- 



10 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

tradicted by Adams himself, who says Jefferson pre- 
pared the whole, and that when they two met to 
con it over he (Adams) does not remember making 
or suggesting a single alteration. He forgot, how- 
ever, that he made two or three verbal changes with 
his own pen. But could either the pen of John 
Adams or Thomas Jefferson hav described a griev- 
ance like this last one in the list ? 

" He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, vio- 
lating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons 
of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and 
carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur 
miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical 
warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare 
of the CHRISTIAN kin? of Great Britain. Determined to 
keep open market where MEN should be bought and sold, he 
has prostituted his negativ for suppressing every legislativ at- 
tempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And 
that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distin- 
guished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in 
arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has 
deprived them by murdering the people on whom he has ob- 
truded them, thus paying off former crimes committed against 
the LIBERTIES of one people with crimes which he urges 
them to commit against the LIVES of another." 

This most eloquent paragraph of the Declaration 
was stricken out unamended. Speaking of it, Prof. 
Denslow says, " The English language possesses no 
clause more elaborate in its rhetoric." And of the 
Declaration as a whole, Col. Ingersoll says : 

" Certain it is that Jefferson could not hav written anything 
so manly, so striking, so comprehensiv, so clear, so convincing, 
and so faultless in rhetoric and rhythm." 



A MASTERPIECE. 11 

But the gentleman from Connecticut, if I am able 
to understand and apply his criticisms, would emas- 
culate the Declaration of all rhetoric and rhythm, and 
make it read thus : 

When people want to break away from others and be inde- 
pendent, they ought to say why. 

People hav an equal right to life, liberty, etc. Governments 
exist to secure these rights. Just governments are based on 
the people's consent. When a government won't protect them, 
they hav a right to upset it and make a new one that will. 

Here is expressed in sixty words every mate- 
rial sentiment in the first one hundred and eighty 
words of the Declaration. But what a skeleton ! 
Could such language as that hav enthused anybody ? 
Such a death's-head and cross-bones in a Declaration 
of Independence, instead of rallying the patriots of 
'76, would hav frightened the goddess of liberty out 
of her senses and driven her into the Dismal Swamp. 

Washington, D. C, May 24, 1881. W. H. B. 



LBJa'21 



